> > I think that one of those two patch should be included in the 2.0.x kernel
> > since it didnt change the overall stability (both work great).
> > Andrew E.Mileski and Jacques share this opinion (the latest prefer the first
> > patch described :*), only Paul seem to be reluctant
>
> I agree with Paul. There is no pressing need to include this in 2.0.x -
> it's not a bug-fix, and as such it should wait for 2.1.
Well, since I STARTED all this in the first place <ducks under table>
I agree - this is not a bug fix. But since when has this stopped
a patch going into a "stable" kernel if it was of some importance!
> I'm not sure if I like "nbunit=" in general either.
> phil
I agree - sounds geeky to me. How about something really difficult
to comprehend like "cards=" or "number="? :-)
- --
Andrew E. Mileski
mailto:aem@ott.hookup.net http://www.redhat.com/~aem/
Linux Plug-and-Play Project Leader http://www.redhat.com/linux-info/pnp/
PGP public keys are available from http://www.redhat.com/~aem/pgp-keys.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBMjjJakXs3rAOyb/9AQH4uQgAws36Q9BQqboQzvBiSh1/RdoL1lnzRDni
GJP6IvsQpaof+zNxTvvED8WtWogD6AYSMwDVfn8hpOhkgiWCwSTGjdFEOCI9LaVW
OB9nEFAuUXNieZfahCrXzQIiBf8ZQU9sjxq125uyesU1Cdr38o1afL7dfvWTOPUD
PjNEX733W1oq3lMRyMIIHui79Z1E2/SZThBmrnCxpKV6isVNZ/G8w2JXP6KSk8KV
GgY9iwMu058+kNZt03lvSbLH2/Vmzadzw1RgSjgxQanLKg1XY16A9XTT0mV9ebN7
pQtBPYIpjuPXr224TZv25GfSryYOkiPzrUTloAPlVT5GFQdX3ubMTA==
=zRkl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----